A Garden Contest and What it Developed 
HOW ONE SUBURB CREATES AN INTEREST IN GARDENING—THE BEAUTY 
THAT RESULTS—EXPERT CRITICISM ON GARDENS THAT WON PRIZES. 
by Harold A. Caparn 
Photographs by Albert K. Dawson 
P OPULAR inter¬ 
est in gardening 
and garden design is 
growing constantly. 
The signs of growth 
are plain to anyone 
and perhaps none of 
them better shows 
the seriousness with 
which the subject is 
regarded than the 
Montclair Garden 
Competition, held 
annually during the 
past three years. It 
is believed that 
some account of it 
and a brief discus¬ 
sion of the principles 
of design involved 
and other pertinent 
matters will be of 
general interest. 
Each year the num¬ 
ber of the entries 
has increased and 
their average qual¬ 
ity improved. The 
attitude of the peo¬ 
ple of Montclair 
towards them seems 
appreciative, and the 
general results en¬ 
courage the hope 
that, in one form or 
another, the idea 
may be adopted in 
other places. It is 
to be expected that 
not only would gar¬ 
dening and the com¬ 
position of gardens 
become better under¬ 
stood thereby and 
the pleasure in them 
deeper and more 
widespread, but that 
the popular taste 
and feeling for art in general would develop with the gardens, 
and life would gain by the addition of something worth while. 
A fund of $500 presented by Mr. James N. Jarvie has provided 
for the prizes and expenses of the competition which has been 
managed by a committee consisting of Mr. Michel Le Brun, the 
architect, Mr. Arthur Underhill, the landscape architect, and 
Mr. Julian Tinkham. Prizes were awarded for entire places 
and for gardens alone, a garden being considered to be a sep¬ 
arate part of the grounds usually enclosed. The points on which 
most stress was laid 
were pictorial effect, 
and livableness; in 
both these are in¬ 
cluded the layout or 
relation of parts, and 
in the latter attain¬ 
ment of privacy. 
There have so far 
been two official 
judges in the garden 
competitions. Gar¬ 
dening and garden 
design are an essen¬ 
tially popular art, 
and the view of the 
intelligent layman is 
well worth correlat¬ 
ing with that of the 
professional garden- 
maker. To avoid 
the possibility of 
any bias in favor of 
mere technical ex¬ 
cellence, there has 
been as well as a 
landscape architect 
a judge versed in de¬ 
sign of other kinds. 
In 1910 Mr. John 
W. Alexander, the 
painter, officiated, in 
1911 Mr. Edwin H. 
Blashfield, the paint¬ 
er, and this year 
Mr. Walter Cook, 
president of the 
American Institute 
of Architects. The 
composition of the 
painter and especial¬ 
ly of the landscape 
painter is naturally 
in close relation to 
that of the garden 
designer, while that 
of the latter and the 
architect are often 
inseparable. So far the idea has worked admirably. Differences 
of opinion have been small and when adjusted by discussion it 
has always been felt that the decision has been the expression of 
all parties to it. 
Last year certain points in one or two of the places entered 
for competition were discussed in the report, and this year criti¬ 
cism of individual places was definitely requested from several 
sources. This was a somewhat invidious task, as praise alone 
would not only be unconvincing, but be little helpful, while blame 
I This garden is notable for its good design. The cleverness of its centering will be noticed if 
one considers the vista obtained between the catalpa trees toward the dark recess on the 
opposite side of the street 
( 370 ) 
